Jury rules Casey Anthony Not Guilty

[HumpinHop]

Is anyone else just happy it's over?

I'm well aware it's a horrific incident, but if you expose and cover anything for too long people have to get sick of it(Bin Laden).

Come to think of it, what else is really in the news right now that could take it's place now that the case has wrapped up?

 

[ZeZZZZevy]

From what I read, neither side really had solid evidence, which explains the verdict

If the prosecution couldn't prove it, the jury (who the legal system tried to make as objective as possible) would have to say "not guilty" because we can't convict someone if the prove isn't concrete.

With all the media coverage though, Anthony will probably be punished by the public for a while to come.

 

[HumpinHop]

Honestly, the OPs mother is an idiot.

This has nothing to do with anyone but those involved in the case, there is no reason for anyone else to be emotionally involved.

The defence team was right in attacking the media and saying "You cannot convict someone until they've had their day in court". If they are found guilty in a court of law, they are guilty, if they are not, then they are not.. there is no other way that the system can work. The media should support this and remember it is their place to report fact and news, not speculation.

No reason at all, really? You've never gotten mad when someone guilty of murder or rape gets off with a slap on the wrist? There's no logical reason to be upset in the same way it's illogical to fear death as an inevitability, Spock.

Nothing is as white and black as you're depicting it, and the same goes with media coverage. The trial (33 days long) was covered live for an entire month, how many viewers do you think were tuning into that? Ratings before responsibility and integrity, sir.

 

[Dr Snakeman]

So she's been declared not guilty. Okay. Why is this a problem? How, exactly, does anyone know that she actually did it and "got away with it"?

Personally, I'm kind of sick of people acting like being accused of a crime is the same as being guilty. I agree that the details of this case seem a bit fishy, and Casey seems like she was a terrible mother, but there is no proof that she killed her daughter. No cause of death, no nothing.

If the jury says she didn't do it, then barring any new evidence, I see no reason to question it (aside from the very human desire to cast blame in order to make oneself feel better).

 

[Carnagath]

I don't know the specifics of the case, but from what I've read it seems that the prosecution fucked up really bad. Again, from what little I know, this was a case that depended a lot on highly technical analysis of forensic evidence. What I don't understand is what a jury of civilians is doing making decisions regarding a case that requires a great deal of legal and scientific knowledge to approach. I don't "get" the American judicial system sometimes.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I don't know the specifics of the case, but from what I've read it seems that the prosecution fucked up really bad. Again, from what little I know, this was a case that depended a lot on highly technical analysis of forensic evidence. What I don't understand is what a jury of civilians is doing making decisions regarding a case that requires a great deal of legal and scientific knowledge to approach. I don't "get" the American judicial system sometimes.

Just wondering, where are you from? The American justice system was lifted pretty much wholesale from English Common Law, at least in terms of how trials work.

 

[internetzealot1]

Would've been convicted if she was a man.

 

[Dimitriov]

Where the hell do they find these jurors?!

That is beyond ridiculous.

 

[HumpinHop]

Would've been convicted if she was a man.

It would have seemed absurd. Men killing their own children is almost unheard of, atleast in America. Always some white woman who drowned her kids, postpartum (I honestly was about to type postmortem) depression or the like.

 

[frizzlebyte]

The prosecution dropped the ball. They figured she would be convicted on the charges alone and offered little evidence. I will not give my opinion on her guilt or innocence, just saying it was a poorly prosecuted case.

This.

It does not matter, in a fair criminal system, whether it is likely she killed her children. Your concerns of 'Well, it looks like she probably did it' is meaningless. A jury isn't to look at whether she is the best suspect.

NONE of those things are good enough in a fair court system.

What matters, and all that should matter is:

Is there absolutely no reasonable doubt?

It does not matter that she lied to police. The defense showed she had a history of pathological lying. They showed she was abused by her father, and that triggered her need to lie... thusly removing the 'she lied so she's guilty' scenario from legal consideration.

The defense brought up that the body could have been moved by the one finding it, to which the prosecution could not rebut. If you're a prosecutor, and your case hinges on 'We found the body in her possession' you better damn well prove it was there and it could not have been moved. Finding it is NOT enough.

The defense brought up the idea that her father could have been a reasonable and possible culprit. It does not matter one bit that it's less likely her father did than the defendant. It matters that the prosecution did not rule out her father, and thus, did not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.


Be GLAD you have a justice system where 'Welp, he looks like a good enough suspect, case closed!' is enough to convict. Where a case has to be worked to the point where prosecution must be air-tight. It's one of the few recourses you have against an unfair law or a police state.

I agree completely. While my gut says "she did it," I suspect that is just my "mob mentality" meter going on alert. The evidence simply was not enough to convict beyond reasonable doubt, and I don't think, had I been in the jury, that I would have entered a guilty verdict. If she did it, then she has to live with it for the rest of her life. If she is innocent, then justice was done. I just hope that people can let her get on with her life.

 

[Blaster395]

Everyone in this thread already made up their minds before the trial starts, and then they claim the justice system is broken when they did not get the result they wanted to hear.

 

[Krunkcity3000]

Holy shit. I finally get to see if a white woman will get treated like OJ Simpson after his trial.

 

[DracoSuave]

Where the hell do they find these jurors?!

That is beyond ridiculous.

The jurors did their job perfectly. The defense found reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case, and the jurors did exactly what a juror is supposed to do in cases of reasonable doubt: Acquit.

This isn't at all like a civil case where whichever side is most likely wins. It's criminal; all or nothing. Innocent until PROVEN guilty, not unnocent until it seems guilty.

Her guilt was not proven. Case closed.

 

[Comieman]

Honestly? I don't care. It's a small tragedy, but it is not worth all the attention media gives it. There are murders every day here in Moscow, and our media stopped mentioning them because nobody cares and the news stations will lose traffic, lol.

But seriously, I hope someday media will reform and will be showing what's really important: like how HIV is on the downroll, or how Gulf of Mexico is almost back to normal. But no, news are one big pile of soap opera.

 

[HumpinHop]

But seriously, I hope someday media will reform and will be showing what's really important: like how HIV is on the downroll, or how Gulf of Mexico is almost back to normal. But no, news are one big pile of soap opera.

Looks like someone reads Cracked

 

[Comieman]

But seriously, I hope someday media will reform and will be showing what's really important: like how HIV is on the downroll, or how Gulf of Mexico is almost back to normal. But no, news are one big pile of soap opera.

Looks like someone reads Cracked

I read Cracked instead of news

 

[emeraldrafael]

Eh. I was never emotionaly invested in thsi case, and when Nancy Grace pretty much propped herself up on it since it started, i was at the point where i was hoping the case would go against whatever made Grace happy (I dont care for her).

But now that its over... i still dont care. I think she did it, but then again, the key word is THINK. Not know, and I'm not triyng to push that on anyone else to be their decision.

In the end, the most important thing is a child is dead, she cant come back, and no one was really brought to justice. so another "unsolved" child death case, sadly one of many in the world.

 

[RaikuFA]

shes not gonna survive once she gets out. remember the end of phoenix wright justice for all? yeah shes gonna be like that. id go into it further but thats your homework assignment for the day. that and finding out what bribery means, as thats the only way she couldve gotton free

 

[Agayek]

Cool. It's like OJ all over again.

Minus the bad-ass legal rhymes.

Hey, don't be hating on the OJ trial. Without that, we would never have discovered the wonders of the Chewbacca Defense.

 

[FMAylward]

There is a reason a court and not the media are the people who run trials.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14024079

A quick brief of that story.
Someone was arrested for a murder.
Media went crazy saying he was guilty and gave evidence.
The person was then released without charge
A few months later someone else was arrested and admitted to the murder.
Now same papers are on contempt of court charges because their "evidence" would have made a fail trial inpossible.


Though I am guessing there will not be any contempt of court charges against the media in the US due to free speech.



Side note: I also belive that she is guilty but there is no way in hell I would ever give someone the death penalty if no one could tell me if someone had drowned in a pool or suffocation.

By the way is there any kind of protection program in the US to stop someone taking "justice" into their own hands when she gets out?